The Norman conquest of England, begun in 1066, included one
seemingly minor change among the many that have long appeared
more important. Before 1066, in the Anglo-Saxon era, the monarch
ruled under the title "King of the English." When the
Normans took the throne the title was changed to "King of
England," and has so remained ever since. This titular distinction
indicated a change in what was regarded as more important -- the
people and their life, or the land.

The King of the English was king of a particular people, and
through them of the land they held or possessed as their own,
which often changed over time. By contrast, the King of England
was king of a particular land or territory, and ruler of whatever
people inhabited it. The orientation of the first was natural,
organic, biological or racial. The people were primary, the particular
territory secondary. The people were more important than the land.
The perspective of the second was artificial, based on legalistic
concepts of property. The land or territory was primary, the people
secondary. The land was more important than the people.

The word "king" comes from the old Teutonic word
kyning , leader of the kin or kindred, who embodies his
people within himself, whose purpose is to serve and defend them
and their interests. The king and the people were one. Wherever
they went, into whatever land or territory they wandered, they
remained the same people, defined by their common racial ancestry
or descent, and their king went with them, leading them, not remaining
behind in the lands they left. With the advent of feudalism, as
represented by the Norman system, the connection of the king with
the people became secondary to the connection of both with the
land. The king and the land were one. The people belonged to the
land, were part of it and went with it. They were no longer identified
with their king, or with each other, as much from their common
ancestry as from the land on which they were born and lived. It
was a major change or difference in their way of thinking about
themselves and their relationship with each other.

Over the last several centuries a similar change has occurred
in the definition of nation and nationhood. Nation comes from
the Latin word natio, "race," and nationality or nationhood
was long defined by the natural determinants of race, common biological
ancestry or descent. In much of the modern Western World this
natural concept of nationhood has been replaced by an abstract
and artificial legalistic concept. It is no longer based on something
physically real, but on legal status. The particular people or
race are no longer regarded as important. This concept permits
persons of widely divergent racial background and type to be members
of the same nation, with the result that nationality loses all
racial meaning or identification.

Such changes in identification and definition have an important
effect on the way people think, on how they see and define themselves
and those around them. Natural definitions help people to think
naturally, in natural terms of race, evolution, Life and Creation.
Artificial definitions sever the connection with nature, and replace
it with legalistic, political, religious or ideological concepts.
The way people think, their concepts of identity, determine their
loyalties and allegiances, what they consider to be important.
If they think naturally, in terms of race and life, the object
of their loyalties will also be natural. If they think artificially,
their loyalties will be given to artificial concepts.

The choice of what to give our loyalty and allegiance to determines
the course of our life. This is true for both an individual and
a race. Patriotism is loyalty to our paters or fathers, the race
of our forefathers, not to land or territory. It is loyalty to
our ancestral line, the racial-genetic continuum of generations
from which we came and of which we are a part, to flesh and blood
and genes, to the stuff of Life, to that which made us and gave
us life, not to artificial concepts and abstract legalisms divorced
from nature.

For the past half-century the Nordish (Northern European) race
has been taught by the dominant elements in its culture to repress
its natural loyalties. Leadership figures of all kinds -- presidents
and princes, and all those in positions of authority and influence
throughout the culture -- have denounced racism, the natural loyalty
to one's race, as inconsistent with loyalty to one's country,
creating a schism between race and country. The Nordish leadership
figures of earlier generations, including the American founding
fathers, did not recognize such a schism, but changing times,
and changing leaders, have not been kind to natural loyalties.
Artificial loyalties, whether political, economic or religious,
have enjoyed priority over natural loyalties, and loyalty to the
artificial ideology or religion of racial nihilism has enjoyed
priority over all others.

In general, the non-Nordish countries have been relatively
immune to the repression of natural loyalties afflicting the West.
In particular, the dynamic nations of northeast Asia -- Japan,
China and Korea -- have retained their racial loyalties and identity.
Outside of the West country and race are still one.

A country is a racial homeland, territory that belongs to a
particular race or people to the exclusion of all others. A territory
that does not belong to one race, but to all, belongs to none.
It is better to have less territory that belongs exclusively to
one race, that is a true country, than to share more territory
with other races. This is especially true for the Nordish race,
which requires racial independence, separation and reproductive
isolation as the necessary conditions for its continued racial
life and existence. The race is more important than any amount
of land or territory, the value of which is only derivative, derived
from the race that inhabits it and which it supports.

If need be, territory should be surrendered to gain or restore
Nordish racial separation and independence. Nordish racial salvation,
saving the Nordish race from diminishment and destruction by racial
intermixture and replacement, preventing the loss of more Nordish
racial-genetic wealth, is a life and death matter of ultimate
self-interest that exceeds all other considerations in importance.
Under the ethics and values of racism -- which judges all matters
by the standard of what is best for the race -- the people and
their life, the race and its continued existence, are more important
than land. The natural wealth of the people, their racial-genetic
wealth, is of greater value than any amount of wealth in land
or material possessions.

The racial preservationist dream is a dream of the Nordish
race regaining the conditions of racial separation and independence
it requires for continued life and control of its own life. It
is a dream of the restoration of Nordish self-determination and
freedom, of Nordish racial liberation and salvation. It is a dream
of Nordish survival and preservation. It is a dream of Nordish
life.

In complete conflict with the racial preservationist dream
of racial salvation through independence and separation is the
racial nihilist dream of a racially-mixed and intermixed society.
The racial nihilist dream denies the Nordish race the right to
racial freedom, separation, independence and self-determination.
It denies it the conditions it requires for racial preservation
and salvation, for continued life. By denying its right to the
conditions of separation and independence it requires for life
it denies it the right to racial life.

The racial nihilist dream is a dream of Nordish racial diminishment,
nonexistence and extinction through racial intermixture and replacement.
It is a dream of Nordish racial death. It is killing the Nordish
race. The difference between the racial preservationist dream
and the racial nihilist dream is nothing less than a matter of
Nordish survival or extinction, of Nordish life or death. For
those who love and value the Nordish race the racial nihilist
dream is the ultimate nightmare.

The racial preservationist dream is a declaration of Nordish
racial independence and self-determination, a proclamation of
Nordish racial separation and liberation. It is a claim by the
Nordish race to the right to racial life and the conditions it
requires to live. It is an assertion by the Nordish race of its
most vital, life-essential rights and interests which, under the
Racial Golden Rule, should be recognized by all races for all
races. It is a command by the guardians of the Nordish race to
all those that would deny its right to life, to independence,
freedom and separation, saying "Let my people go. Let them
be free, separate and independent in their own land, in control
of their own existence and destiny. Let my people live."
It is a cry for Nordish freedom. It is a cry for Nordish life.
It is a call to save the Nordish race.

Racial salvation is the prerequisite for individual salvation.
The salvation or continued life of the individual by their reproduction
cannot succeed in the long run unless their race is also saved
and continues to exist. There is no individual salvation without
racial salvation. The individual is part of the whole, interconnected
with the rest of their race. The genetic traits, characteristics
and life essence of the individual can continue only if their
race continues, can exist only as part of their race, cannot exist
separate from it. Those who oppose the salvation of their race
oppose their own salvation, the long-range salvation of their
genetic traits and life essence.

Nordish racial salvation or preservation, the realization of
the racial preservationist dream, requires a protected racial
environment, land or territory that is exclusively its own, racial
homelands that are inhabited only by Northern Europeans, excluding
all other races. Thomas Jefferson asserted the Racial Golden Rule
when he stated that all races should be free. He recognized vital
racial rights and interests when he added that different races
could not live in the same government (country or nation). The
Nordish race cannot live in the same country as other races, only
die.

The Nordish choice is between racial separation or racial intermixture,
between racial life or racial death. Intermixture causes Nordish
racial death, separation prevents it. Whatever supports one opposes
the other. Whatever resists one assists the other. Whatever opposes
racial separation supports racial intermixture -- opposes Nordish
racial life and supports Nordish racial death. Whatever opposes
racial intermixture and Nordish racial death supports racial separation
and the Nordish right to racial life. A large part of the Nordish
race has already been lost -- suffered the fate of racial death
and negation -- from the intermixture that has already occurred.
For the Nordish race there are no other alternatives than racial
liberty or racial death. Without racial liberty the Nordish race
will cease to exist. It cannot live without it.

Territorial separation and independence from other races is
the condition required for Nordish salvation or continued life.
Social separation or segregation is only partially and temporarily
successful, and violates the rights of all races involved to true
independence in accordance with the Racial Golden Rule. Only territorial
separation and independence -- each race having its own sovereign
country and government, totally free politically, economically
and culturally from all the others, with exclusive control and
determination of its own future and destiny -- is consistent with
the Racial Golden Rule and the right to racial life, and it is
the only condition in which the Nordish race can continue to live.

Racial separation is the non-destructive or preservationist
solution to the racial dilemma caused by multiracialism. It is
the alternative offered by the Racial Compact, based on the principle
of racial rights and the ethical concept of "Many Mansions."
Its goal is the independence and preservation of the distinct
branches or races of humanity in their full and undiminished form.
This goal requires separation, either by the partition of a multiracial
country into separate monoracial countries, or -- where this is
not just, desirable or practical -- by the repatriation of racially
incompatible populations to their own racial homelands.

In Europe, where ancient racial homelands have been violated
by the recent (post-1957) immigration of incompatible racial elements,
it would not be just to partition these homelands between their
ancient indigenous populations and the recent immigrants, nor
would it be desirable or practical to settle such incompatible
elements within the close proximity of such geographically restricted
areas. Consequently, the just, moral, desirable and practical
solution would be the repatriation of the recent immigrants to
their own racial homelands or countries of racial origin, or --
if this is not practical -- their transfer to a new racial homeland
provided for them outside of Europe.

Also, as the indigenous populations of Europe are not all genetically
compatible (for example, extensive intermixture between the populations
of northern and southern Europe -- Nordish and Mediterranid --
would diminish or negate the genetic traits of the Nordish element),
the preservation of the racial diversity of Europe requires the
continued reproductive isolation of genetically incompatible populations
by geographic separation. The current movement toward greater
European economic and political unity should not be permitted
to become a vehicle for the violation of racial rights and racial
destruction by promoting the migration of non-Nordish elements
into the Nordish homelands, but should adopt policies that promote
racial security and preservation.

In North America (the United States and Canada), where geographical
area is relatively abundant, and where incompatible racial groups
have been present in large numbers for many generations, making
the repatriation or removal of any major group both unjust and
impractical, the luxury of space permits partition to be a practical
-- as well as just and moral -- solution. The Nordish race --
which founded both the United States and Canada, historically
comprised the great majority of their populations, and still forms
a declining majority -- has more at stake in North America than
any other racial group. Over 30% of the global Nordish population
(and over 40% of the Central Nordish population) currently lives
in the United States and Canada. By comparison, less than 5% of
the global Congoid population lives in North America, and historically
it probably never held more than 5% of the total Amerindian population
until the large-scale immigration of Mexican and other Latin American
Indians and Mestizos after 1965.

A racial partition of the existing multiracial nation into
separate and fully independent monoracial nations, in which national
and racial-genetic boundaries coincide, could take many forms.
The author believes that his proposal [Link
to Racial Partition for Racial Preservation]
is a fair one, consistent with the Racial Golden Rule. It recognizes
the primary role of the Nordish race in the development of North
America, and the position of that great land mass as a primary
or major Nordish racial homeland, whereas it is only a secondary
or minor homeland for the other races. But it also recognizes
the legitimate rights of the non-Nordish races to sufficient territory
to create suitable and viable fully independent countries of their
own on the North American continent.

Racial independence, separation and liberation means that one
race is not the property of others. It is not owned or controlled
by others but only by itself. It does not exist to serve the purposes
or interests of other races, only its own purposes and interests.
It is not a means to the ends of others, but an end in itself.
It has its own evolutionary destiny to follow, its own destination
to reach, its own reason for being, its own dream of Creation
to realize.

The racial preservationist dream sees the Nordish race as an
essential part of the plan of Creation, a part that must be preserved
and protected by a parting of the races. Without a racial partition
it will be destroyed and a life form that adds something unique,
precious and wonderful to the content and substance of Creation
and Life will be lost. If it is lost it is likely that more things
will be lost with it than are presently even dreamed of by science
or philosophy. Nothing would be lost to Creation by a racial partition,
but without a racial partition the Nordish race would be lost.
With the passing of the Nordish race an important part of Creation
would be lost. The universe would not be the better for such a
loss, but much the worse for being much diminished. To prevent
this loss we must part the races as divergent evolution did before
we interfered and began to undo and decreate its vast work of
creation. We must part the races so the Nordish race, and human
racial diversity as a whole, can continue to exist, so the different
branches of humanity created by divergent evolution can continue
their evolutionary journey, and ascending life can continue to
ascend.